I don't get it. How does the IL SC say they can't make the decision and boot it back to a lower court? That's like my unit commander saying he can't make the decision and forcing me to make it instead. Shouldn't it move up, not down, the chain of command?

There were findings of fact required at the trial court level that were not considered. Appellate and Supreme Courts only can consider facts from the trial. In order to enter new facts, it must go back to trial court. That's how our legal system works.

McDonald bypassed most of the trial phase by a motion from Gura to narrow the question. Therefore, no facts were required only a decision.

People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men [and women] stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

--George Orwell

-- Certified something-or-other by various organizations and governmental entities.

Justice Burke is married to Chicago Alderman Burke (who enjoys 24 hour Chicago Police protection) and Justice Theis lives across the street from Mayor Emmanuel and her adult son was part of Mayuor Emmanuel's election staff.

Bud

Words only hold power in the hearts and minds of honest, reasonable people, for the rest you must use force.

i hate living here so much i can hardly stand it. but i like it just a TINY SMIDGE more than the prospect of taking another bar exam elsewhere. i hate this state and the politicians and most of the undereducated voting idiots in chicago. i wish i could give this place the finger, but i can't ( FU illinois!!!FU Chicago. and FU machine democrats!!!!

21 pages ling affirmed in part, on the equal protection and due pro process

Remand on the 2-615 issue

More to follow looks like i owe some people a beer

Unanimous decision

I'll take the Heineken, you can keep the ammo. I work downtown now.

Sent from my tactical multicam SCH-I500.

Stung by the result of McDonald v. City of Chicago, 130 S. Ct. 3020 (2010), the City quickly enacted an ordinance that was too clever by half. Recognizing that a complete gun ban would no longer survive Supreme Court review, the City required all gun owners to obtain training that included one hour of live‐range instruction, and then banned all live ranges within City limits. This was not so much a nod to the importance of live‐range training as it was a thumbing of the municipal nose at the Supreme Court.

The court ruled that lower courts were wrong to throw out the challenge. The Supreme Court said it wants the trial court to hear evidence on whether assault weapons get the same Second Amendment protections as handguns.

Cook County banned the sale or possession of assault weapons in 1993. The ordinance included details of what constituted an assault weapon and examples of banned guns, but it was aimed at "high-capacity, rapid-fire" rifles and pistols. The law was expanded in 2006 to ban large ammunition magazines.

The ban was challenged by three Cook County residents who said they had perfectly valid reasons to own the prohibited weapons, from hunting to target shooting to personal protection. They argued that the law was too vague and too broad, with little connection to the goal of increasing public safety.

A trial court rejected their challenge, as did the state appeals court.

Then the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a Chicago ordinance that essentially banned handguns. It held that the 2nd Amendment establishes a fundamental right to possess a handgun for self-defense. The Illinois appeals court took another look at the case in light of the new Supreme Court ruling but still found the Cook County ban was constitutional.

The court ruled that lower courts were wrong to throw out the challenge. The Supreme Court said it wants the trial court to hear evidence on whether assault weapons get the same Second Amendment protections as handguns.

Cook County banned the sale or possession of assault weapons in 1993. The ordinance included details of what constituted an assault weapon and examples of banned guns, but it was aimed at "high-capacity, rapid-fire" rifles and pistols. The law was expanded in 2006 to ban large ammunition magazines.

The ban was challenged by three Cook County residents who said they had perfectly valid reasons to own the prohibited weapons, from hunting to target shooting to personal protection. They argued that the law was too vague and too broad, with little connection to the goal of increasing public safety.

A trial court rejected their challenge, as did the state appeals court.

Then the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a Chicago ordinance that essentially banned handguns. It held that the 2nd Amendment establishes a fundamental right to possess a handgun for self-defense. The Illinois appeals court took another look at the case in light of the new Supreme Court ruling but still found the Cook County ban was constitutional.

it's exactly what it says. The IL Supreame court ruled that it should be allowed to go to trial. It's not a victory, that will show imediate results, but a victory none the less. So it go back down to be tried.

"A river cuts through a rock not because of its power but its persistence." - Jim Watkins

I was exepcting more, and was led to believe there might be more from the Supreme, but had I done my homework, I'd have known that we only had two choices from the State Supreme court. Uphold the dismissals of the lower courts, or be remanded back to the lowest court, hear testimony and try the case.

We couldn't expect the Supreme to rule the AWB unconstitutional, there had been very little if any testimony and or arguments made for or against that issue. All the Cook County circuit court did was say that there wasn't enough evidence to even hold a trial, so they dismissed the whole thing. The appellate court said "yep, the circuit was right". Now the Supreme comes along and says hey dummies, maybe on some counts it can be dismissed, but on the issue of the Second Amendment, the plaintiff's have got some valid points. You'd better take this case back to the beginning and listen to what they have to say and give it a fair trial.

So, as Valinda says, the motions to dismiss by the defendants (Cook County) have been pushed aside, and the lower court has been told to hear the case and make a decision. From that aspect, it's a win for us. But it just takes so damned much time!

Tim

Are you a member of the ISRA?? If not, why not?? Join over 18,000 other Illinois gun owners in the fight for your rights!!!

The Roman Empire fell due to a large, corrupt government, overspending, an overextended military, insecure borders, and the illegal immigration of Goths, barbarians (anyone who was not educated), and religious fanatics. Sound familiar?

"..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.."--Samuel Adams

I was exepcting more, and was led to believe there might be more from the Supreme, but had I done my homework, I'd have known that we only had two choices from the State Supreme court. Uphold the dismissals of the lower courts, or be remanded back to the lowest court, hear testimony and try the case.

We couldn't expect the Supreme to rule the AWB unconstitutional, there had been very little if any testimony and or arguments made for or against that issue. All the Cook County circuit court did was say that there wasn't enough evidence to even hold a trial, so they dismissed the whole thing. The appellate court said "yep, the circuit was right". Now the Supreme comes along and says hey dummies, maybe on some counts it can be dismissed, but on the issue of the Second Amendment, the plaintiff's have got some valid points. You'd better take this case back to the beginning and listen to what they have to say and give it a fair trial.

So, as Valinda says, the motions to dismiss by the defendants (Cook County) have been pushed aside, and the lower court has been told to hear the case and make a decision. From that aspect, it's a win for us. But it just takes so damned much time!

Tim

I completly agree, I think that was the only 2 viable options, and we had our hopes up for nothing in looking for something more . Nothing was ever tried, so they cant say the ruling was good or bad since there was no ruling. All they could say was if the dismissal was just or unjust and they ruled based on that.

"A river cuts through a rock not because of its power but its persistence." - Jim Watkins

I spoke for a while earlier today with ISRA Lead Council Victor Quilici.

Here's a basic summary of what I can share.

Re. Due Process and Equal Protection:
Disappointing that they ruled against us on these, even though attorney Ed Ronkowski in our opinion did an excellent job arguing for them.

Re. 2nd Amendment argument:
Vic had fought to ensure that the Court’s error in granting the 2-615 motion would be argued before the Supreme Court. When the legal team
practiced, and held moot court, some attorneys present felt that the argument regarding the 2-615 motion was not that important, but Vic insisted it would be. Good thing he was right and made sure that argument was made before the State Supreme Court.

I spoke for a while earlier today with ISRA Lead Council Victor Quilici.

Here's a basic summary of what I can share.

Re. Due Process and Equal Protection:Disappointing that they ruled against us on these, even though attorney Ed Ronkowski in our opinion did an excellent job arguing for them.

Re. 2nd Amendment argument:Vic had fought to include the 2-615 Motion to Dismiss in the ISRA lawsuit. When he and his legal team practiced and held moot-court, some present had argued against including the 2-615, saying that the court would never go for it. Good thing he was right and made sure that was part of the case.

The due process and equal protection claims are ultimately a federal claim and can be further litigated in the federal courts.

I was exepcting more, and was led to believe there might be more from the Supreme, but had I done my homework, I'd have known that we only had two choices from the State Supreme court. Uphold the dismissals of the lower courts, or be remanded back to the lowest court, hear testimony and try the case.

We couldn't expect the Supreme to rule the AWB unconstitutional, there had been very little if any testimony and or arguments made for or against that issue. All the Cook County circuit court did was say that there wasn't enough evidence to even hold a trial, so they dismissed the whole thing. The appellate court said "yep, the circuit was right". Now the Supreme comes along and says hey dummies, maybe on some counts it can be dismissed, but on the issue of the Second Amendment, the plaintiff's have got some valid points. You'd better take this case back to the beginning and listen to what they have to say and give it a fair trial.

So, as Valinda says, the motions to dismiss by the defendants (Cook County) have been pushed aside, and the lower court has been told to hear the case and make a decision. From that aspect, it's a win for us. But it just takes so damned much time!

Tim

I have a dumb question, if the lower courts didn't think it was even neccesary to listen to the arguments and thought Cook co. was right all along, how can we expect them to fairly hear all the evidence if they've already decided we're wrong?

IC / SAF / ISRA / NRA / GRAA MemberAnywhere you are able to carry a pen you should be able to carry a sidearm.

They hate guns so much, they are willing to risk the lives of large crowds and children to feel better with their 'gun free' zones.

I have a dumb question, if the lower courts didn't think it was even neccesary to listen to the arguments and thought Cook co. was right all along, how can we expect them to fairly hear all the evidence if they've already decided we're wrong?

No such thing as a dumb question.

What the IL SC said was youy failed to take into consideration all of the facts and this time you have to do it. The difference is that they have now been notified that their omission has been noted and if they don't get it right this time, a higher court will.

This, as it turns out, is a win for us, it is just taking the long road to get to it unstead of the short path.

Bud

Words only hold power in the hearts and minds of honest, reasonable people, for the rest you must use force.